Having, as I think, satisfactorily shown
that the publication of Freemasonry by Elder Bernard, in his
"Light on Masonry," and by Richardson and others, is in all
essential points truthful and correct, I proceed to notice the
character of Masonry as it is thus revealed. But first I observe
that, when, it is said that these authors agree, and that
different lodges agree, it is not intended, as I have intiimated
in a formere number, that they are precisely alike in every word
and syllable.

Nor is it intended that since these
revelations Masons have not introduced new signs, pass-words,
grips, etc., by which they know each other; for it is well known
that the Grand Lodge of New York, to prevent book Masons from
entering their lodges, and passing themselves as Masons
everywhere; did introduce new pass-words and signs by which Masons
made themselves to each other. But the thing intended is that
these authors substantially agree in their revelations of
Freemasonry; and that Freemasonry, in its principles and
inculcations, is the same at present that it was when these
revelations were made. In another place I shall have occasion to
show that Freemasonry is a growth, and that nearly all the present
degrees of Masonry have been formed and introduced since about the
middle of the eighteenth century.

At present I remark that, on an examination
of Bernard's "Light on Masonry," it will be seen that Freemasonry
is an imposture and a swindle.

This will appear in the following
particulars:

1. Its claims to great antiquity are false.
Every one at all acquainted with the claims of Freemasonry knows
that it professes to have existed in the days of Solomon; and it
is claimed that Solomon himself was a Freemason, and that John the
Baptist and John the Evangelist were Freemasons. Indeed, the
writers frequently trace it back as coeval with the creation
itself. Masons have claimed for their institution an antiquity
antecedent to human government; and from this they have argued
that they have a right to execute the penalties of their oaths,
because Masonry is older than government. Now an examination will
show that this claim is utterly false. Their own highest
authorities now pronounce it to be false; and still these claims
are kept up, and their oaths and ceremonies and the whole
structure of the institution profess the greatest
antiquity.

Solomon, for instance, figures as a
Freemason everywhere in their ceremonies.

Their lodges are dedicated to St. John; and
in the third degree there is a scene professed to have been
enacted in the temple and at the building of the Temple of
Solomon.

Now, all this, as I shall have occasion to
show more fully hereafter, is utterly fallacious, a false
pretense, and a swindle; because it is the obtaining of money from
those who join them under false pretenses.

Steinbrenner, a great Masonic historian,
after much research, with manifest candor, says that Speculative
Freemasonry&emdash;which is the only form of Freemasonry now
existing&emdash;dates no further back than 1717. The article on
Freemasonry in the new "American Encyclopedia" agrees with this
statement of Steinbrenner. Indeed, all modern research on this
subject has resulted in dating the commencement of Freemasonry, as
it now exists, not far from the middle of the eighteenth
century.

Dr. Dalcho, the compiler of the book of
constitutions for South Carolina, says: "Neither Adam, nor Noah,
nor Nimrod, nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Solomon, nor
Hiram, nor St. John the Baptist, nor St. John the Evangelist, were
Freemasons. Hypothesis in history is absurd. There is no record,
sacred or profane, to induce us to believe that those holy men
were Freemasons; and our traditions do not go back to those days.
To assert that they were Freemasons may make the vulgar stare, but
will rather excite the contempt than the admiration of the
wise."

Now, observe, this is a high authority, and
should be conclusive with Masons, because it is one of their own
leaders who affirms this. But, if this is true, what shall we
think of the claims of Freemasonry itself? For every one who reads
these revelations of Freemasonry will see that Solomon, and Hiram,
and those ancient worthies everywhere figure in these rites and
ceremonies; so that, if these men were indeed not Masons, then
Freemasonry is a sham, an imposture, and a swindle. What! has it
come to this, that this boasted claim of antiquity, which
everywhere lies at the foundation of Masonic rites, ceremonies,
and pretensions, is now discovered to be false?

But again, no one can read Bernard on
Masonry through, or any of these authors, without perceiving the
most unmistakable evidence that most of the degrees in Masonry are
of modern date. I do not know why so much stress should be laid
upon the antiquity of Masonry by those who embrace and adhere to
it. It surely does not prove that it is of any value, or that it
is true. Sin is of very ancient date, heathenism is of very
ancient date, and most of the abominations that are in the world
are of very ancient date; but this is no reason tbr embracing
them, or regarding them as of any great importance.

But to certain minds there is a charm in
the appearance and profession of antiquity; and young Masons are
universally deceived in this respect, and led to believe that it
is one of the most ancient of existing institutions, if not the
very most so. Now, I would not object to Masonry because it is of
modern origin; for this would not prove it to be false, if it did
not profess to be of ancient origin. I notice this false pretense
not because I think its being of recent date would prove it
unworthy of notice, or of immoral character or tendency. But
observe that its pretensions from first to last are that it is of
very ancient date; and it is traced back to the days of
inspiration, and is claimed to have been founded and patronized by
inspired men.

What would Masonry be if all its claims to
antiquity were stricken out? and if those degrees in Masonry, and
those ceremonies and usages, were abolished that rest upon the
claim that Solomon, that Hiram Abiff, and John the Evangelist,
were Freemasons? What would remain of Freemasonry if all those
claims found in the very body of the institution were stricken
out? Why, their very lodges are dedicated to the holy order of St.
John and Zerubbabel, etc. But what had St. John to do with
Freemasonry? Manifestly nothing. He never heard or thought of it.
Nor did Solomon or Zerubbabel.

And here let me say a word to young men who
have been urged to unite with this fraternity, and who have been
made to believe that the institution is so very ancient that it
was established and patronized by those holy men. My dear young
men, you have been deceived. You have been imposed upon as I was
imposed upon. You have been made to believe a lie. They have drawn
your money from you under false pretenses that some very ancient
mysteries were to be revealed to you; and that the institution was
one established as far back, at least, as the days of Solomon, and
that St. John was the patron of the institution. Now this, rely
upon it, is but a pretense, a sham, an imposture, and a swindle. I
beg you to believe me; and if you will examine the subject for
yourself, you will find it to be true.

Your own best historian, Steinbrenner, will
teach you that Freemasonry, as you know it, and as it is now
universally known, dates no further back than the eighteenth
century. And Dr. Dalcho, who is good authority with the
brotherhood, as we have seen, repudiates the idea of its antiquity
as that which "may make the vulgar stare, but will rather excite
the contempt than the admiration of the wise." I know that Masons
affirm that the institution in its present form is the descendant
of a brotherhood of stone-masons, whose history may be traced back
for some seven hundred years. But remember that Freemasonry, as
you know it, and as it now exists, is not at all what it was among
those simple artisans. The name is preserved, and some of its
symbols, for the purpose of claiming for it great antiquity. But
do not be deceived. If you will examine the subject for
yourselves, you will find that modern Freemasonry is entirely
another thing from that from which it claims to be descended. And
when you hear ministers, or orators, on any occasion, claiming for
speculative Freemasonry&emdash;which is the only form in which it
now exists&emdash;a great antiquity, let it be settled, I pray
you, in your minds, that such claims are utterly false; and that
those who make them are either grossly ignorant or intensely
dishonest. King Solomon a stone-mason! Hiram a Grand Master of a
Grand Lodge of stone-masons! Those men uniting in a lodge with a
company of stone-masons! Does any one really believe the silly
tale?

This
file is CERTIFIED BY GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES TO BE CONFORMED
TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. For authenticity verification, its
contents can be compared to the original file at
www.GospelTruth.net
or by contacting Gospel Truth P.O. Box 6322, Orange, CA
92863. (C)2000. This file is not to be changed in any way,
nor to be sold, nor this seal to be
removed.